Revisionism in Bitcoin Magazine

[casascius]

I am thrilled to have received my PDF copy of Bitcoin Magazine, but very disappointed that the article The Bulls and the Bears: Twelve Bitcoin Hits and Eight Spectacular Misses has been revised to now be The Bulls and the Bears: Eleven Bitcoin Hits and Nine Spectacular Misses.  And the text about Bitcoinica has been rewritten to describe its failure rather than its success, noted "updated July 2012".

What's wrong with leaving the original version of the magazine intact?  The magazine was accurate as possible at the time it was published, there is no reason it needs to be revised.  Bitcoinica crashed and burned after the magazine was published.

[1715565056]

1715565056

[Vladimir]

As they say: "Don't blame the mirror for your ugly face". Bitcoin Magazine just reflects reality. Electronic version was published recently and there is no good reason to list Bitcoinica as a huge success now.

Next time we will try to reduce the wait between print and digital editions to reduce chances of the bitcoin winners to become loser meanwhile. 

[rjk]

Well damn, I was holding off on digitizing the original, but I might as well if the digital version is rewriting history.

[teflone]

Since I paid for 2 copies and only got one..  Can I have the difference back ?

[casascius]

As they say: "Don't blame the mirror for your ugly face". Bitcoin Magazine just reflects reality. Electronic version was published recently and there is no good reason to list Bitcoinica as a huge success now.

Next time we will try to reduce the wait between print and digital editions to reduce chances of the bitcoin winners to become loser meanwhile.  

Yes there is a good reason, many of them in fact: archival purposes.  Academic purposes.  Research purposes.  When most publications make a mistake or find out something pertinent after the fact, they add a footnote to the bottom clarifying it.  They don't simply cut a new revision of the same issue with the story changed.

The PDF file format offers a fantastic mechanism for adding callout annotations.  Use that feature to note issue #1.  Address Bitcoinica's fall in issue #2.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

I am thrilled to have received my PDF copy of Bitcoin Magazine, but very disappointed that the article The Bulls and the Bears: Twelve Bitcoin Hits and Eight Spectacular Misses has been revised to now be The Bulls and the Bears: Eleven Bitcoin Hits and Nine Spectacular Misses.  And the text about Bitcoinica has been rewritten to describe its failure rather than its success, noted "updated July 2012".

What's wrong with leaving the original version of the magazine intact?  The magazine was accurate as possible at the time it was published, there is no reason it needs to be revised.  Bitcoinica crashed and burned after the magazine was published.

I'm sadden to read this if that's the case.  

On a lighter side, did the ink smudge while reading the PrettyDumbFuckup copy?  

Were any grammatical errors--albeit few--corrected? If not, then why not?  

Being from Indian is not the only reason I believe Matthew is Amish. He's rucky I'm busy with other ongoing investigations, otherwise this faux pas would have been looked into.  

As they say: "Don't blame the mirror for your ugly face". Bitcoin Magazine just reflects reality. Electronic version was published recently and there is no good reason to list Bitcoinica as a huge success now.

Next time we will try to reduce the wait between print and digital editions to reduce chances of the bitcoin winners to become loser meanwhile. 

Yes there is a good reason, many of them in fact: archival purposes.  Academic purposes.  Research purposes.  When most publications make a mistake or find out something pertinent after the fact, they add a footnote to the bottom clarifying it.  They don't simply cut a new revision of the same issue with the story changed.

The PDF file format offers a fantastic mechanism for adding callout annotations.  Use that feature to note issue #1.  Address Bitcoinica's fall in issue #2.

I'll have to agree here. Sorry, Bitcoin Magazine team.

~Bruno~

[smoothie]

I am thrilled to have received my PDF copy of Bitcoin Magazine, but very disappointed that the article The Bulls and the Bears: Twelve Bitcoin Hits and Eight Spectacular Misses has been revised to now be The Bulls and the Bears: Eleven Bitcoin Hits and Nine Spectacular Misses.  And the text about Bitcoinica has been rewritten to describe its failure rather than its success, noted "updated July 2012".

What's wrong with leaving the original version of the magazine intact?  The magazine was accurate as possible at the time it was published, there is no reason it needs to be revised.  Bitcoinica crashed and burned after the magazine was published.

I'm sadden to read this if that's the case.  

On a lighter side, did the ink smudge while reading the PrettyDumbFuckup copy?  

Were any grammatical errors--albeit few--corrected? If not, then why not?  

Being from Indian is not the only reason I believe Matthew is Amish. He's rucky I'm busy with other ongoing investigations, otherwise this faux pas would have been looked into.  

As they say: "Don't blame the mirror for your ugly face". Bitcoin Magazine just reflects reality. Electronic version was published recently and there is no good reason to list Bitcoinica as a huge success now.

Next time we will try to reduce the wait between print and digital editions to reduce chances of the bitcoin winners to become loser meanwhile. 

Yes there is a good reason, many of them in fact: archival purposes.  Academic purposes.  Research purposes.  When most publications make a mistake or find out something pertinent after the fact, they add a footnote to the bottom clarifying it.  They don't simply cut a new revision of the same issue with the story changed.

The PDF file format offers a fantastic mechanism for adding callout annotations.  Use that feature to note issue #1.  Address Bitcoinica's fall in issue #2.

I'll have to agree here. Sorry, Bitcoin Magazine team.

~Bruno~

+1

[Vladimir]

Thanks for feedback.

So tell me how to fix this little problem? Would sending out one more pdf with original text help?

[FreeMoney]

I think leaving all of the original text is best. If something major changes especially if the outdated info could hurt a reader an amendment, marked as such can be made in addition to all of the original text.

[caveden]

So tell me how to fix this little problem? Would sending out one more pdf with original text help?

I'd do that. Perhaps use PDF annotation feature as said by casacius to add a note stating that when the magazine was published, Bitcoinica was still operating normally.

[BlackBison]

Non-fiction books usually add heavy footnote annotations that totally change previous events and this is the sort of thing that should have been added:

'Despite the downturn in 2007 when others were losing millions, XYZ Fund still managed to make a large profit, which shows the exceptional talents of Mr ABC^*1

_____________________

1. Since this paragraph was written XYZ Fund has lost over 50% of its AUM in the first half of 2008. (+ Huge wall of text describing what happened.)

[spiccioli]

Since I paid for 2 copies and only got one..  Can I have the difference back ?

Same here, I've bought two copies of #1, but received as of now just one.

spiccioli

[kentrolla]

As they say: "Don't blame the mirror for your ugly face".

LOL. Awesome quote. I'm going to have to use that one. Ofc, I've never heard it before because I'm absolutely beautiful.

[Spekulatius]

Since I paid for 2 copies and only got one..  Can I have the difference back ?

Hmm, I paid for 3 and only got one. Already reminded them of it, will I ever get them?

[vampire]

Someone from the bitcoin's magazine team:

Can I share the digital version? Like on my facebook?

[Kluge]

Since I paid for 2 copies and only got one..  Can I have the difference back ?

Hmm, I paid for 3 and only got one. Already reminded them of it, will I ever get them?

It was announced a while ago that they were being sent out next issues (dunno if just Issue 2 or both 2 and 3) to subscribers, IIRC, so maybe we'll start seeing "AH GOT MAH SECOND ISSUE TOODAY!" threads by the end of the week.

[casascius]

So tell me how to fix this little problem? Would sending out one more pdf with original text help?

I'd do that. Perhaps use PDF annotation feature as said by casacius to add a note stating that when the magazine was published, Bitcoinica was still operating normally.

I meant do the opposite - publish the PDF to match the print edition, and add annotations to say something happened after it was published.  No revising the story!

I think I'd have no problem with revision of minor obvious typographical errors... but changing a story is a huge journalistic no-no.

[ElectricMucus]

So tell me how to fix this little problem? Would sending out one more pdf with original text help?

I'd do that. Perhaps use PDF annotation feature as said by casacius to add a note stating that when the magazine was published, Bitcoinica was still operating normally.

I meant do the opposite - publish the PDF to match the print edition, and add annotations to say something happened after it was published.  No revising the story!

I think I'd have no problem with revision of minor obvious typographical errors... but changing a story is a huge journalistic no-no.

+1

I would be severely disappointed if you change the story after it has been published.

[rjk]

I dunno about magazines, but technical publications regularly publish "errata" as a few pages separate from the main publication.

[caveden]

So tell me how to fix this little problem? Would sending out one more pdf with original text help?

I'd do that. Perhaps use PDF annotation feature as said by casacius to add a note stating that when the magazine was published, Bitcoinica was still operating normally.

I meant do the opposite - publish the PDF to match the print edition, and add annotations to say something happened after it was published.  No revising the story!

That's what I meant too. Adding a note explaining why this failure is listed as a success. I agree the contents should match the printed version.